Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

["吴潍浠(此彼)" <weixi dot wwx at antfin dot com>]

Hi
I updated the patch and put it in attachment.

gcc/ChangeLog:                                                     

2017-09-04  Wish Wu  <wishwu007@gmail.com>                         

        * asan.c (initialize_sanitizer_builtins):                  
        * builtin-types.def (BT_FN_VOID_UINT8_UINT8):              
        (BT_FN_VOID_UINT16_UINT16):                                
        (BT_FN_VOID_UINT32_UINT32):                                
        (BT_FN_VOID_FLOAT_FLOAT):                                  
        (BT_FN_VOID_DOUBLE_DOUBLE):                                
        (BT_FN_VOID_UINT64_PTR):                                   
        * common.opt:                                              
        * flag-types.h (enum sanitize_coverage_code):              
        * opts.c (COVERAGE_SANITIZER_OPT):                         
        (get_closest_sanitizer_option):                            
        (parse_sanitizer_options):                                 
        (common_handle_option):                                    
        * sancov.c (instrument_cond):                              
        (instrument_switch):                                       
        (sancov_pass):                                             
        * sanitizer.def (BUILT_IN_SANITIZER_COV_TRACE_CMP1):       
        (BUILT_IN_SANITIZER_COV_TRACE_CMP2):                       
        (BUILT_IN_SANITIZER_COV_TRACE_CMP4):                       
        (BUILT_IN_SANITIZER_COV_TRACE_CMP8):                       
        (BUILT_IN_SANITIZER_COV_TRACE_CMPF):                       
        (BUILT_IN_SANITIZER_COV_TRACE_CMPD):                       
        (BUILT_IN_SANITIZER_COV_TRACE_SWITCH):                     

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:                                           

2017-09-04  Wish Wu  <wishwu007@gmail.com>                         

        * gcc.dg/sancov/basic3.c: New test.                        

I think the aim of "trace-cmp" is finding reasonable values in runtime, playing approximate tricks when fuzzing.
We don't need to save all of values from low_case to high_case, there may be too much values and wasting resource.
For code :
void bar (void);
void
foo (int x)
{
  if (x == 21 || x == 64 || x == 98 || x == 135)
    bar ();
}
GIMPLE IL on x86_64:
  1 
  2 ;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=2161, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=0)
  3 
  4 foo (int x)
  5 {
  6   unsigned int _5;
  7   unsigned int _6;
  8   unsigned int _7;
  9   unsigned int _8;
 10   unsigned int _9;
 11   unsigned int _10;
 12   unsigned int _11;
 13   unsigned int _12;
 14 
 15   <bb 2> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
 16   _5 = (unsigned int) x_2(D);
 17   _6 = (unsigned int) 21;
 18   __builtin___sanitizer_cov_trace_cmp4 (_5, _6);
 19   if (x_2(D) == 21)
 20     goto <bb 6>; [INV] [count: INV]
 21   else
 22     goto <bb 3>; [INV] [count: INV]
 23 
 24   <bb 3> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
 25   _7 = (unsigned int) x_2(D);
 26   _8 = (unsigned int) 64;
 27   __builtin___sanitizer_cov_trace_cmp4 (_7, _8);
 28   if (x_2(D) == 64)
 29     goto <bb 6>; [INV] [count: INV]
 30   else
 31     goto <bb 4>; [INV] [count: INV]
 32 
 33   <bb 4> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
 34   _9 = (unsigned int) x_2(D);
 35   _10 = (unsigned int) 98;
 36   __builtin___sanitizer_cov_trace_cmp4 (_9, _10);
 37   if (x_2(D) == 98)
 38     goto <bb 6>; [INV] [count: INV]
 39   else
 40     goto <bb 5>; [INV] [count: INV]
 41 
 42   <bb 5> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
 43   _11 = (unsigned int) x_2(D);
 44   _12 = (unsigned int) 135;
 45   __builtin___sanitizer_cov_trace_cmp4 (_11, _12);
 46   if (x_2(D) == 135)
 47     goto <bb 6>; [INV] [count: INV]
 48   else
 49     goto <bb 7>; [INV] [count: INV]
 50 
 51   <bb 6> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
 52   bar ();
 53 
 54   <bb 7> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
 55   return;
 56 
 57 }
 58 
 59
It actually catches reasonable and meaningful values. 
Maybe we can improve it in the future for tracing all of expression for comparison.

Wish Wu
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Time:2017 Sep 3 (Sun) 19:05
To:Wish Wu <weixi.wwx@antfin.com>
Cc:Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>; gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>; wishwu007 <wishwu007@gmail.com>
Subject:Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements


On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:38 PM, 吴潍浠(此彼) <weixi.wwx@antfin.com> wrote:
> Hi
> I will update the patch according to your requirements, and with some my suggestions.
> It will take me one or two days.

Thanks! No hurry, just wanted to make sure you still want to pursue this.

> Wish Wu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> From:Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> Time:2017 Sep 3 (Sun) 18:21
> To:Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
> Cc:Wish Wu <weixi.wwx@antfin.com>; gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>; wishwu007 <wishwu007@gmail.com>
> Subject:Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:50:16AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>> What we instrument in LLVM is _comparisons_ rather than control
>>>> structures. So that would be:
>>>>     _4 = x_8(D) == 98;
>>>> For example, result of the comparison can be stored into a bool struct
>>>> field, and then used in branching long time after. We still want to
>>>> intercept this comparison.
>>>
>>> Then we need to instrument not just GIMPLE_COND, which is the stmt
>>> where the comparison decides to which of the two basic block successors to
>>> jump, but also GIMPLE_ASSIGN with tcc_comparison class
>>> gimple_assign_rhs_code (the comparison above), and maybe also
>>> GIMPLE_ASSIGN with COND_EXPR comparison code (that is say
>>>   _4 = x_1 == y_2 ? 23 : _3;
>>> ).
>>>
>>>> > Perhaps for -fsanitize-coverage= it might be a good idea to force
>>>> > LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT/BRANCH_COST or whatever affects GIMPLE
>>>> > decisions mentioned above so that the IL is closer to what the user wrote.
>>>>
>>>> If we recurse down to comparison operations and instrument them, this
>>>> will not be so important, right?
>>>
>>> Well, if you just handle tcc_comparison GIMPLE_ASSIGN and not GIMPLE_COND,
>>> then you don't handle many comparisons from the source code.  And if you
>>> handle both, some of the GIMPLE_CONDs might be just artificial comparisons.
>>> By pretending small branch cost for the tracing case you get fewer
>>> artificial comparisons.
>>
>>
>> Are these artificial comparisons on BOOLEAN_TYPE? I think BOOLEAN_TYPE
>> needs to be ignored entirely, there is just like 2 combinations of
>> possible values.
>> If not, then what it is? Is it a dup of previous comparisons?
>>
>> I am not saying these modes should not be enabled. You know much
>> better. I just wanted to point that that integer comparisons is what
>> we should be handling.
>>
>> Your example:
>>
>>   _1 = x_8(D) == 21;
>>   _2 = x_8(D) == 64;
>>   _3 = _1 | _2;
>>   if (_3 != 0)
>>
>> raises another point. Most likely we don't want to see speculative
>> comparisons. At least not yet (we will see them once we get through
>> the first comparison). So that may be another reason to enable these
>> modes (make compiler stick closer to original code).
>
> Wait, it is not speculative in this case as branch is on _1 | _2. But
> still, it just makes it harder for fuzzer to get through as it needs
> to guess both values at the same time rather then doing incremental
> progress.

Attachment: gcc-svn-201709041958.patch
Description: Binary data